5
Forward from: https://www.reddit.com/r/fullegoism?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Powered by : @r_channels and @reddit2telegram
Any egoists interested in the Occult?
I'm a Satanist myself, but I'm interested in other occult religions like Thelema, Wicca, Chaos Magick, Paganism etc. If you're a member of any of these, how do you navigate the philosophy with consideration for egoism? Are there any similarities that maybe drew you initially to that religion or to egoism? Just what are your experiences in general? I'm interested.
So please, share anything you have! :D
https://redd.it/182c10i
@fullegoism
Yo mama a spook
https://redd.it/181raev
@fullegoism
Fun fact: There are still people who believe in objective morality 💀💀
https://redd.it/17ztz93
@fullegoism
How does ego-communism synthesize hyper-individualism with collectivism?
I honestly don’t know much about ego-communism(I do know it has a lot of anarchist influence and many ego-communists identify as anarcho-communists but I don’t think it’s necessarily anarchism) anyways if any one can explain this that would be amazing. I haven’t really read any works from ego-communists(though I have read many works from Emma Goldman who takes inspiration from max stirner). So this is pretty new territory to me.
https://redd.it/17zctph
@fullegoism
Ghosts isn’t real
https://redd.it/17z3zu3
@fullegoism
Question
Is Race a spook? I think that races are made by the State do devide us and to make us more eazy to control. Am i just schizophrenic?
https://redd.it/17yfx3n
@fullegoism
Would the right consider egoists Woke?
https://redd.it/17xwt1j
@fullegoism
Any fellow egoist here who knoes about finance etc?
Wanted to discuss something
https://redd.it/17xp5ke
@fullegoism
What do you make of these quotations as Egoists?
"The illusion of anarchism" by British Egoist Dora Marsden.
"[... \] Resisting the 'state' because it is the 'state' is therefore futile: a negative, endless, fruitless labor. 'What I want is my state: if I am not able to build it, I do not care whose state is being built: my motivation was and is the establishment of my own.' The world should be shaped according to my wishes, if I could shape it in this way; if I fail, I should not imagine that there should be no world at all: others more powerful than me will take care of it. If I make such a mistake, it is up to me to correct it and pay for it. ' So the archist. When the curtain falls on one state, it automatically rises over another. 'The state has fallen, long live the state' - even the widest revolutionary anarchist can't get rid of this. On the morning of his successful revolution, he would have to find means to protect his 'anarchist' ideas: and he would find himself protecting his own interests with all the forces at his disposal, like a vulgar archist: formulating his laws and his state sustained until a freer archist came along to replace and replace him. "
''In Defense of Stirner'' By Italian Egoist, Enzo Martucci.
However, the question between anarchists and archists has been badly stated from the beginning. In fact, we are not concerned with whether anarchy or archy can cement the best social relations, or bring about the most complete understanding and harmony between individuals. We try, instead, to discover which is the most useful for the realisation and expression of the individual—who is the only existing reality. Is it anarchy, which offer me a free and perilous life, in which I might fall from one moment to another, but which allows me to affirm myself at least once? Is it archy, which guarantees me a controlled life in which I am confined and protected, but in which I can never live as I feel and will? Which is preferable—intensity or duration? Michelstaedter has said that preoccupation with tomorrow limits living. I am for today.’
Archists, Anarchists and Egoists by British Egoist, Sidney E.Parker.
Egoism, conscious egoism, seen for what it is instead of being pressed into the service of a utopian ideology, has nothing to do with what Marsden well-called “clerico-libertarianism”. It means, as she put it in her controversy with Tucker, “....a tub for Diogenes; a continent for Napoleon; control of a Trust for Rockefeller; all that I desire for me: if we can get them.” It is not based upon any fantasy for its champions are well aware of the vital difference between “if I want something I ought to get it” and “being competent to achieve what I want”. The egoist lives among the realities of power in the world of archists, not among the myths of the renouncers in the dream world of anarchists.
John Henry Mackay's Stirner by possibly Turkish Egoist, H. İbrahim Türkdoğan
No matter how we look at it, we see that Mackay-doctrine does not merge with Stirner. Stirner's words such as "power and violence belong only to me, that is, to the strong and violent" (Stirner, p. 231) or "What are you waiting for, if you need it, do not hesitate, buy it" are fascinating, but probably not very pleasant for someone who does not embrace violence. But Mackay, who says he hates violence, must have seen a declaration of peace in this sentence of Stirner, and he does not criticize Stirner in this respect. That Mackay never understood Stirner is evident from the following action: In the list of questions he sent to Dähnhardt (Stirner's second wife), to whom he could contact in writing to get information about Stirner, there is also a question: "Did he make any statement?" (BA Laska: Ein dauerhafter Dissident. LSR-Verlag, 1996, p.136). “As can be seen from his writings, Mackay never actually represented Stirner's specific position; essentially and “always represented Individualist Anarchism of Anglo-Saxon origin”. Sensing that Stirner's "original thought" was completely "different" from his own, Mackay did not
Like Stirner, Kaczynski is a fun read.
I’ve been reading some works by Kaczynski, and here and there I just laugh because he -like stirner- mocks and criticizes ruthlessly. Specifically, he mocks and criticizes leftists, technophiles, and university intellectuals, among others; although it’s not to the same extent as stirner.
From The System’s Greatest Trick he wrote
“The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the System's trick. Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today.”
Hahaha.
https://redd.it/17xh6ip
@fullegoism
Read
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03a.htm
https://redd.it/17wp07p
@fullegoism
Max Stirner and Michael Foucault.
I've been reading Stirner for a little bit now and thinking about how Stirner, much like foucault, provided a new way of thinking about power, self and truth that differ dramatically form that of Marx and the communist.
So, I was wondering what you guys thought about there connection and what that might be. I don't know if foucault read stirner but I think they would have a fascinating conversation.
https://redd.it/17w8506
@fullegoism
Egoistic anarchism and voting
I have a question, since elections are going on in my country, I have refused to go vote for many reasons, some being the fact I dislike how the government runs our country, and also considering myself an anarchist I don’t really see a point in voting when I am against the idea of a government. I’m fairly new to Max Stirner and his ideas but I was wondering what do you guys think about voting and what is your reasing for voting/not voting and does it have anything to do with Stirner’s ideas that perhaps influenced you?
https://redd.it/17vzy79
@fullegoism
How has egoism helped you when facing hard times?
https://redd.it/17vd5uf
@fullegoism
Stirner and the Fredoom
Stirner and freedom
​
I would be interested to know how you see Stirner and his relationship to "freedom". At first I thought it was a great good for him, because he frees himself from everything, morality, the law and so on. Stirner would also be partly summarized here as "Feel FREE to do what you want". But in his main text, freedom doesn't actually come off so well, even at the beginning he criticizes that his cause should be truth, humanity and freedom. So freedom, just like humanity and truth, is an abstraction, a spook. Later he even writes that freedom is worth nothing, the freedom to possess something is of no use to me, but to possess something is very useful, to make it my own.
​
So Stirner doesn't want freedom, but "Eigenheit", whatever that means in concrete terms, and it must actually be something very concrete. Because if the idiosyncrasy is only an idea, an ideal. Then, once again, the characteristic is just a spit from which we have to detach ourselves.
​
What is "Eigenheit" ? What is the difference between being one's own and being free?
for more context, i'm a native german speaker and use a translation program for english, it's faster and easier, but for "eigen" the program doesn't give me a satisfactory translation, so i don't translate it.
​
https://redd.it/17v1m8y
@fullegoism
You've heard of egoist anarchism but why isn't there egoist minarchism?
https://redd.it/1820bsq
@fullegoism
Did Stirner ever explore or mention the idea of eternal consciousness?
I heard someone mention a quote from Stirner that went vaguely along the lines of "The unique does not fear death for it knows itself to be apart from its body", but I haven't been able to retrace it. Maybe it's in Stirner's Critics and one of yall might recognize it?
https://redd.it/180rv0l
@fullegoism
Suppose that there exists a completely amoral, lawless society
If I strongly dislike a specific behaviour, and I use violence against that individual to assert my will by force, am I not engaging in moralism or authoritarianism?
Does amoralism necessitate neutral tolerance towards all behaviours to be logically consistent?
It seems like you have what Karl Popper calls a Paradox of Tolerance, where you end up in a contradiction because you are tolerant, or intolerant towards intolerance.
How do you address this apparent logical inconsistency?
https://redd.it/17zmrpn
@fullegoism
Ghosts isn’t real
https://redd.it/17z4sy3
@fullegoism
who knew the the unique and its property translator was so based
https://anarchistnews.org/content/wolfi-landstreicher-child-molestation-apologist
https://redd.it/17yuoui
@fullegoism
isn't anarcho egoism supposed to be post-left?
rightists and rightoids keep praising stirner and i get called a rightist for being an egoist. do i know something wrong?
https://redd.it/17y2j8l
@fullegoism
Got a (couple) question(s) about egoism and Stirner.
Hi! I’m relatively new to egoism and have a few questions about it, particularly, about it’s prescriptive aspects and what it is and isn’t compatible with.
I have read through some other threads on this sub about how Egoism can be compatible with (most/some) ideologies, like this thread, and I guess I understand the rational between the main kind of answes on there, but I still have some questions about it.
Primarily, should “if it pleases your Ego” be the only real reason for someone being an Ego-blank, or can, do, and should other reasons come in?
What I mean by this is that a spook is a fixed idea, and if someone were an Egoist, but gave reasons from a set of propositions or axioms (or, from what (s)he would think were axioms) to argue in favour of, say, communism, or for mutualism, or for Anarcho-Capitalism, or for whatever, would that be a spook since they base their reasoning on something attempting to be fixed or universally true?
And I don’t mean “is the conclusion of [blank ideology] a spook”, I mean would the reasoning behind/prior be a spook if it’s attempting to look at ideas outside of ones ego?
Stirner, or any other Egoist ftm, may have covered this issue. I do own a physical copy of The Ego and His Own, but I’m already reading something else and I such at reading two books over the same period.
https://redd.it/17xt6zj
@fullegoism
have the ability to combine it, but rather tried not to "take BvM seriously". This is why he views BvM with suspicion of satire. (BA Laska: John Henry Mackays Stirner-Archiv in Moskau. Der Einzige, Vierteljahresschrift des Max-Stirner-Archivs Leipzig. 3. August 1999, p. 8.)
“I am an anarchist! Wherefore I will not rule And also ruled I will not be.” — John Henry Mackay
“What I get by force I get by force, and what I do not get by force I have no right to.” — Max Stirner
​
https://redd.it/17xog58
@fullegoism
Why creative nothing is generative force?
The term "creative nothing" suggests a paradoxical idea. While "nothing" typically implies an absence or lack, Stirner uses it in a positive and creative sense. Stirner's notion of the creative nothing does not represent a void or emptiness but rather a dynamic, generative potential. It is a force that creates, defines, and gives rise to existence and meaning. The nothingness is not a passive absence; instead, it actively contributes to the creation of concepts, identities, and the world.
What exactly is Stirner's basis for considering nothing as a creative force? I assume he had some sort of philosophical backing for such a bold claim, but I can't seem to find it.
https://redd.it/17xo62s
@fullegoism
question
im an ex marxist, and i have a lot of marxist friends. i decided i was an anarcho-egoist a few days ago. and i have this friend, he calls himself a marxist-leninist-maoist, he keeps calling people like trotsky "traitors". i want to tell him about the ego and stuff but he wont even listen to me. what do i do?
https://redd.it/17wrtns
@fullegoism
Black Lagoon and Egoist Anarchism
If you want to witness Egoist Anarchism in its rawest form manifesting in today's world, I believe the anime Black Lagoon illustrates it best. However, this isn't to imply that Egoism is confined to brute force and violence. Not at all. A genuine egoist is adaptable and versatile. In a barbaric world teeming with malice and violence, a true egoist would resist, refusing to let any societal constructs dictate their actions. Nor would they recoil, yet they might retreat or yield if it serves their best interests. Given the appropriate environment, an egoist could also be an artist, a STEM specialist, or excel in any domain enabling them to express their uniqueness.
​
Moreover, this doesn't imply that an egoist will invariably resort to criminal activities, though most egoists tend towards illegalism. Even illegalists acknowledge that the risk of imprisonment or death by law enforcement significantly impacts an egoist's decision to commit a crime. Hence, egoists employ their intellect, weigh options, and take calculated risks. Sometimes, adhering to laws might serve an egoist's best self-interest. It might even be in their favor to enforce laws.
​
I'd venture to say, egoists comprehend that utopian dreams are mere illusions. An egoist won't wait for Utopia to start living the life they desire because utopianism is a spook.
​
Anarcho-communists argue that Egoist Anarchism and Anarcho-communism align. I agree with them. Yet, I'll take it further and assert that Egoist Anarchism harmonizes with any political ideology as long as it serves the current best self-interest of the egoist. Nothing is sacrosanct. Everything is a societal construct. Everything is compatible, provided it serves my self-interest.
https://redd.it/17wd4t6
@fullegoism
What about Crime
I just got into egoism and i was thinking of why should be Justified to lets say rape somebody. I get why would ppl steal but rape just seems evil to me.
https://redd.it/17w4oy0
@fullegoism
What is Freedom?
What is freedom?
Some define it as doing whatever you want. Others take a more limited approach, barring specific actions for everyone's collective benefit.
Despite popular opinion, a piece of freedom is not freedom. Limited freedom is an oxymoron. If I allow my dog time outside, is it that the dog has the freedom to be outside or is it because my authority has deemed it acceptable?
If freedom is associated with an authority or a certain regime of law or type of community, or if it's aligned with a higher rational and moral idea, this in effect alienates the individual’s freedom.
In other words, if external conditions and standards are seen to prescribe and determine the extent of freedom, one ends up disempowering individuals and robbing them of their own capacities for freedom.
Freedom isn't the goal. It's empty, an abstraction, a fixed idea alien to the individual. Self ownership is the goal, the power to determine what you wish to be free from and what you wish to be subjected to.
"If you reflect on it correctly, you don’t want the freedom to have all these fine things, for with this freedom you do not have them; you actually want to have these things, to call them yours and possess them as your property. What use is freedom to you, if it contributes nothing ? And if you became free from everything, you would no longer have anything; because freedom is lacking in content. For one who doesn’t know how to use it, this useless permission has no value; but how I make use of it depends on my ownness. I have no objection to freedom, but I want more than freedom for you: you should not just be rid of what you don’t want, you should also have what you want; you should not just be a “freeman;’ you should also be an “owner.” -Max Stirner
https://redd.it/17ve1jn
@fullegoism
Hummanity is the biggest spook of ouer time
Stirner speaks of several spits. Freedom, equality, humanity and that all these things only think of themselves. Freedom only serves freedom. They are egoists.
"That's why I want to be an egoist myself"
But I maintain that we actually only have one spit at the moment. I'll take something as concrete as possible. The women's quota. Why are people for the women's quota or against it? Some are in favor because the women's quota would serve justice, men and women are equal. Other supporters say it would help feminism. Opponents say that it would not help or harm something, for example equality or freedom. But all these things do not serve themselves. They serve humanity. Because freedom and equality help humanity or humanity, we have to help these things. After all, we are all human! So when the women's quota is debated, all the arguments that are seen as legitimate are only arguments for humanity and when an Andrew Tate, for example, fights against feminism. It is only because he believes that it harms humanity or a god that is placed in front of it, masculinity or patriarchy. But both are fighting for humanity or the human race
https://redd.it/17v9yqt
@fullegoism
I have a doubtful(?) question
Forgive me for my ignorance, how would people be safe from those who wish to cause harm?
https://redd.it/17uv4e1
@fullegoism